Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 27/05/2022
Pot Size: $75,000 USDC
Total HM: 20
Participants: 58
Period: 7 days
Judge: GalloDaSballo
Total Solo HM: 15
Id: 131
League: ETH
Rank: 43/58
Findings: 1
Award: $159.01
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: IllIllI
Also found by: 0x1f8b, 0x29A, 0xNazgul, 0xf15ers, BowTiedWardens, Chom, Funen, Kaiziron, Kumpa, MiloTruck, Picodes, Ruhum, SecureZeroX, Sm4rty, SmartSek, StyxRave, WatchPug, Waze, asutorufos, bardamu, berndartmueller, c3phas, catchup, cccz, codexploder, cryptphi, defsec, delfin454000, dipp, fatherOfBlocks, gzeon, hake, hansfriese, hyh, masterchief, oyc_109, sach1r0, sashik_eth, shenwilly, simon135, unforgiven
159.0051 USDC - $159.01
**Occurrences in: *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/AmmGauge.sol#L130-L134 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/AmmGauge.sol#L108-L111
**Occurrences in: *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/VestedEscrow.sol#L68 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/VestedEscrow.sol#L74 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/Minter.sol#L99
3.. Missing zero address check The following are missing checks for existence of zero address which may lead to transfers to zero address or causing some functions to no longer be accessible.
**Occurrences in: *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/AmmGauge.sol#L124 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/AmmGauge.sol#L56 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/AmmGauge.sol#L103 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/BkdLocker.sol#L70 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/FeeBurner.sol#L31 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/FeeBurner.sol#L31 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/StakerVault.sol#L111 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/StakerVault.sol#L139 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/StakerVault.sol#L359 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/Minter.sol#L126 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/Minter.sol#L144 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/VestedEscrow.sol#L65
**Occurrences in: *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/RewardHandler.sol#L52 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/RewardHandler.sol#L64 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/FeeBurner.sol#L118 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/zaps/PoolMigrationZap.sol#L27
**Occurrences in: *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/RewardHandler.sol#L64 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/FeeBurner.sol#L118
6.. Costly external calls in a loop *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/Controller.sol#L127 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/RewardHandler.sol#L44 *https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/RewardHandler.sol#L44 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/FeeBurner.sol#L70 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/VestedEscrow.sol#L99 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/main/protocol/contracts/tokenomics/VestedEscrow.sol#L102
#0 - GalloDaSballo
2022-06-20T15:47:19Z
Would rephrase to lack of CEI pattern, as no reEntrancy was demonstrated
Informational
Valid
Technically valid but safeApprove is being used correctly throughout the codebase
In lack of alternative, the one line comment is not useful
In lack of a suggested refactoring, the one line comment is not useful
Agree that this needs to be changed, and believe Low Severity to be appropriate because this is happening in a constructor